HL Deb 23 July 1956 vol 199 cc77-88

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION (PROTECTIVE HELMETS FOR MOTOR CYCLISTS)

1.—(1) A person against whom proceedings are brought in England or Wales for an offence under section (Protective helmets for motorcyclists) of this Act (hereinafter referred to as "the principal section") shall, upon information duly laid by him and on giving to the prosecution not less than three clear days' notice of his intention, be entitled to have any person to whose act or default be alleges that the contravention of that section was due brought before the court in the proceedings; and if. after the contravention has been proved. the original accused proves that the contravention was due to the act or default of that other person, that other person may be convicted of the offence, and, if the original accused further proves that he has used all due diligence to secure that that section was, complied with, he shall be acquitted of the offence.

(2) Where an accused seeks to avail himself. of the provisions of the last foregoing subparagraph—

  1. (a) the prosecution, as well as the person whom the accused charges with the offence. shall have the right to cross-examine him, it he gives evidence, and any witness called by him in support of his pleas, and call rebutting evidence;
  2. (b) the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the payment of costs by any parry to the proceedings to any other party thereto.

(3) Where it appears that an offence under the principal section has been committed in respect of which proceedings might be taken in England or Wales against some person (hereinafter referred to as "the original offender"), and a person proposing to take proceedings in respect of the offence is reasonably satisfied that the offence of which complaint is made was due to an act or default of some other person, being an act or default which took place in England or Wales, and that the original offender could establish a defence under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph, the proceedings may be taken against that other person without proceedings first being taken against the original offender.

In any such proceedings the accused may be charged with, and on proof that the contravention was due to his act or default, be convicted of, the offence with which the original offender might have been charged.

2.—(1) Where proceedings are brought in England or Wales against any person (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as "the accused") in respect of a contravention of the principal section, and it is proved—,

  1. (a) that the contravention was due to the act or default of some other person, being an act or default which took place in Scotland, and
  2. (b) that the accused used all due diligence to secure compliance with that section, the accused shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be acquitted of the offence.

(2) The accused shall not be entitled to be acquitted under this paragraph unless within seven days from the date of the service of the summons on him he has given notice in writing to the prosecution of his intention to rely upon the provisions of this paragraph, specifying the name and address of the person to whose act or default he alleges that the contravention was due, and has sent a like notice to that person.

(3) The person specified in a notice served under this paragraph shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence. and the court may. if it thinks fit, adjourn the hearing to enable him to do so.

(4) Where it is proved that the contravention of the principal section was due to the act or default of some person other than the accused, being an act or default which took place in Scotland, the court shall (whether or not the accused is acquitted) cause notice of the proceedings to be sent to the Minister.

3.—(1) Where a contravention of the principal section committed by any person in Scotland was due to an act or default of any other person, being an act or default which took place in Scotland, then, whether proceedings are or are not taken against the first-mentioned person that other person may be charged with and convicted of the contravention and shall be liable on conviction to the same punishment as might have been inflicted on the first-mentioned person if he had been convicted of the contravention.

(2) Where a person who is charged in Scotland with a contravention of the principal section proves to the satisfaction of the court that he has used all due diligence to secure that the provision in question was complied with and that the contravention was due to the act or default of some other person, the first-mentioned person shall be acquitted of the contravention.

4.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this paragraph. in any proceedings (whether in England or Wales or Scotland) for an offence under the principal section, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove—

  1. (a) that he purchased the helmet in question as being of a type which under the principal section could be lawfully sold or offered for sale, and with a written warranty to that effect, and
  2. (b) that he had no reason to believe at the time of the commission of the alleged offence that it was not of such a type, and
  3. (c) that it was then in the same state as when he purchased it.

(2) A warranty shall only be a defence in any such proceedings if—

  1. (a) the accused—
    1. (i) has, not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing, sent to the prosecutor a copy of the warranty with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it and specifying the name and address of the person from whom he received it. and
    2. (ii) has also sent a like notice of his intention to that person, and
  2. (b) in the case of a warranty given by a person resident outside the United Kingdom, the accused proves that he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain, and did in fact believe in, the accuracy of the statement contained therein.

(3) Where the accused is a servant of the person who purchased the helmet in question under a warranty, he shall be entitled to rely on the provisions of this section in the same way as his employer would have been entitled to do if he had been the accused.

(4) The person by whom the warranty is alleged to have been given shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence. and the court may, if it thinks fit, adjourn the hearing to enable him to do so.

5.—(1) An accused who in any proceedings for an offence under the principal section wilfully applies to any helmet a warranty not given in relation to that helmet shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person who, in respect of any helmet sold by him, being a helmet in respect of which a warranty might be pleaded under the last foregoing paragraph, gives to the purchaser a false warranty in writing, shall be guilty of an offence, unless he proves that when he gave the warranty he had reason to believe that the statements or description contained therein were accurate.

(3) Any person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to the like penalties as under the principal section.

(4) Where the accused in a prosecution for an offence under the principal section relies successfully on a warranty given to him or to his employer, any proceedings under subparagraph (2) of this paragraph in respect of the warranty may, at the option of the prosecutor, be taken either before a court having jurisdiction in the place where the helmet, or any of the helmets, to which the warranty relates was procured, or before a court having jurisdiction in the place where the warranty was given."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again I am afraid is an extremely long and complicated Amendment to achieve quite a simple thought. What it does is to provide a defence to an innocent seller who has sold a helmet as affording protection to a motor cyclist from injury when the helmet was not of the prescribed type although it was supplied to the seller by a wholesaler as being of the prescribed type. This is the way, apparently, in which we have to do that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

After the Sixth Schedule insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Mancroft.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Seventh Schedule [Minor and consequential amendments]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 65, line 36, leave out ("of") and insert ("as to").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment, too, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 41, at end insert ("being an offence committed in respect of a motor vehicle").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.58 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, before moving that the Bill do now pass may I make one correction in what I said with regard to Clause 33 when we were discussing an Amendment to subsection (3) (a). I think that what I said possibly went a little too far in regard to the question of six hours and subsection (3) (c). The effect of that is this. It is probably not true to say that if it goes over six hours it is automatically invalid. What is true is that the ban would not arise if it were under six hours. On the other hand, if it were over six hours it would he valid or invalid, acording to whether or not it prevented what the court thought was a reasonable access. I think that is stating the position more accurately.

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that probably very few Bills in recent times have been examined as exhaustively and thoroughly as this has been. It has been twice through your Lordships' House and one and a half times through the other place. As a matter of statistics, in the course of the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages 260 Amendments have been on the Order Paper and have been examined. Of these we have accepted rather more than half—to be precise, 146; and of these, 33 have been of substance and 113 consequential and drafting. Of the 33 substantial Amendments, over one-third have been moved by noble Lords other than from this Bench. I allocate one each to Lord Howe. Lord Gifford, Lord Waleran and Lord Colville of Culross. I share one between the noble Lords, Lord Dement and Lord Teynham, and two go to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and five to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We started the Bill twenty months ago with twenty-four clauses and three Schedules. The Bill now has fifty-five clauses and nine Schedules.

If I may, I would shortly outline what we have done in this House. On the controversial question of testing, we have undertaken to produce a White Paper on the first two clauses dealing with this question. We have extended police powers; we have defined the offences to which disqualification applies; we have introduced a 40 m.p.h. limit on an experimental basis; we have provided special controls for footpaths and bridle-paths for motor bicycle trials; we have imposed control of cycle racing on public roads; we have made provision for further consideration of the interests of frontagers in areas designated for parking meters; we have established a completely new code for traffic regulations outside London; we have altered the rules for lighting-up time; and we have taken powers to require the British Standard Institution specification No. 2001 to be used for the manufacture of crash helmets.

As has been said more than once. this is an enabling Bill. The Department are fully aware that a substantial task lies ahead if we are to make the best use of the opportunity given by this Bill. The Bill strengthens discipline on the roads. I think it fair to recognise that if any improvement in the general parking problem is to come from parking meters there will have to be greater enforcement of the law. I think that that is something that we should recognise, as the police already do. We have sought to maintain that happy relationship which has always existed, and which we hope will continue to exist, between the police and the general public. Much of the Bill is of an experimental character, whether it be for the testing of cars, speed limits, parking meters or traffic regulations. But while we recognise that these things are experimental, I am sure it is right that we should experiment: and we should be very much open to criticism if we did not do so.

In conclusion, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken an active part in our discussions. We welcome their criticism, even if we have not always been able to meet their points. I am glad to welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, to our discussions and I express my admiration of the resolution and determination with which the noble Lord. Lord Conesford, has pursued the objects which he has so long held dear to his heart. I should particularly like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the manner in which he has made us defend the Bill clause by clause. I am only sorry that we have not been able to meet as many of the points he raised as we did last time. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for the immense assiduity with which he has examined the problems of transport. He brings to them a great deal of personal experience which I know is of the greatest value to the House. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (The Earl of Selkirk.)

6.6 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, whatever opinion we may have regarding the merits of this Bill, no noble Lord in any part of the House can have two opinions about the skill, the courtesy and, in some cases, when he has had to cover up the complete lack of any policy on the part of the Government, the artistry of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. We are deeply indebted to him. He has worked hard to pilot this Bill through your Lordships' House. For those concessions which he has given us, sometimes like crumbs that have fallen from the rich man's table, making some of us feel like Lazarus at the table of Dives, we arc very grateful. He has done his job with remarkable skill and it is always pleasing to see a workmanlike performance, no matter in which part of the House a noble Lord may sit. In that respectful tribute I cannot omit the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who has done the House great service in the manner in which he dealt with those questions that came within his scope. I shall have a word to say in a minute about the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.

As regards the Bill, in some respects I think it is about the worst Bill I have ever seen. The noble Earl has rightly said that it is an enabling Bill. The battles on many things have yet to come. Whatever we have managed to do in our protracted discussions is nothing to what we shall have to do when some of the regulations are brought before the House. I still think that the Government made a very grave mistake in the first part of this Bill relating to testing stations. I think that the dawn of enlightenment is now about to break over them. During the Report stage the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, showed that the Government have not studied the problem and have no idea of the problem that is going to confront them. I think it would be useful to quote what the noble Earl said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 198, Col. 1079]: I must confess that I was rather disturbed to note what Lord Lucas of Chilworth said in Committee. He said that no doubt the vendor of a secondhand car would have a testing station so that he would be able to do this testing in his spare time and could himself issue the certificate. I think that is going a little far, to buy a car from a man who is obliged to give a certificate "— I then interrupted to say: That is precisely what will happen when this Bill becomes law. The noble Earl went on to say: Testing somebody else's car is quite a different thing from testing a car which you are seeking to sell. There is only one certificate a vendor should ever give, and that is a continuing certificate, a guarantee lasting months or weeks, as the case may be. But a certificate at the moment of sale is absolutely and entirely bad. That is precisely what is going to happen. Under this Bill there will be about 15,000 testing stations, and every one will deal in secondhand motor cars. If it had been in order for me to do so, I would have come to the aid of the noble Earl and offered to your Lordships a Manuscript Amendment to Clause 2, which would have read: Provided that no person shall be appointed an authorised examiner under this section who is engaged in the business of selling motor vehicles. Very likely, in the course of time, that is what the law will have to be. However, that battle will have to be fought in the future.

I do not think that the Government have treated the system of spot checking with the seriousness with which they should have treated it. They have written off spot checking, which is the one thing, above anything else, that will help in the problem of unroadworthy cars. I do not think that they have tackled the problem of parking in the right way. To give service to the public there must be off-street parking, but the Government have done nothing to ensure that that will be brought about. All we have had is the pious hope that at some future date, by having parking meters, the local authorities will collect sufficient money to provide off-street parking. It is a national and local authority responsibility to provide off-street parking for motor vehicles in this country. That problem, and the road congestion problem, will never be solved until the Government come to the aid of local authorities, and provide financial help, either by way of loan, or by grant out of the £400 million which they now take from road users, for off-street parking. Again, one day they will have to do it; and again, I am sure that we shall have quite a lot of discussion on that problem when we come to the Regulations.

I have only one other point to make. I quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that we have improved the Bill. Although it may have many more clauses, we have made a sincere effort to do something to stem the tide. Where I think we have failed is on the question of penalties. I am not happy about them. I am not going to fight the battle all over again, but I believe that we shall be compelled to have stiffer penalties. I think there is only one real answer to the problem of road accidents, and that is, somehow or other, to find the secret of controlling the behaviour of all users of the road; and I cannot think of any other way than by making the punishment fit the crime. I see that a correspondent in the The Times to-day does not agree with me, but I am still convinced that, sooner or later, some Government will have to reconcile this vast difference of opinion between Parliament and the magistrates' benches of this country. There is a wide gap between the idea of Parliament of the seriousness of road accidents, as shown by the maximum penalties which have been put into this Bill, and the magistrates, as shown by the average penalties inflicted by them.

I want to draw attention to something which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said on this question—and we are indebted for the way in which he dealt with it. I am sorry that he is not on the Woolsack at the moment, because I said that I should be asking him a question. However, I can ask it of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who no doubt will reply. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor treated this matter with great seriousness, and on July 17, in talking about the effort in this House during the course of this Bill, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 198 (No. 118) col. 1156]: If this effort fails, then not only the magistrates but we ourselves will have to think again. This is the last chance of voluntary serious consideration of one of the greatest evils of our time. I do not think I can say more to mark the seriousness of the matter." Those words, coming from the Lord Chancellor, are of serious moment; and I read into them—I hope I. do not read too much into them—that unless the penalties inflicted by magistrates in the future arc more of a deterrent than 'they have been in the past, then there will have to be some serious re-thinking as to whether or not the method of legislating for penalties for road offences must undergo serious reconsideration. I should like to ask the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, the question of which I gave the Lord Chancellor notice. I would ask him: how does he propose that these serious words shall be brought to the notice of all the magistrates' benches in the country? That is where they need to be read; not so much in your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me a reply to that question.

So we say "Goodbye" to this Bill, for myself with thankfulness—and I am sure I echo the opinion of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. If there is anything I have become rather tired of, it is the Road Traffic Bill, 1956. However, we shall no doubt come back to it in future. through the Regulations, and I can promise the noble Earl that, if he is in charge of the matter then for the Government, he will receive from this side of the House the same helpful criticism and assistance as our contribution to the solution of one of the greatest scourges that we suffer from in this country to-day.

6.14 p.m.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, in three sentences I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk for the skill and courtesy he has shown in the conduct of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I have at times been a critic of certain points, but I should like to say, especially, how glad I am, since he is good enough to credit me with two Amendments, to say that on both occasions I withdrew my own Amendments on the Committee stage in response to his offer to give them further consideration before Report. On each occasion my noble friend was far better than his word; he treated the matter with immense patience and skill, and I thank him for it.

6.15 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, I, too, am getting a little tired of the Road Traffic Bill, and I do not propose to go galloping over old battlefields; I will only answer the one question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in the absence of my noble and learned friend from the Woolsack. I think it is fair to say that the magistrates of this country have already taken note of the grave words which my noble and learned friend spoke on this all-important subject. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, will appreciate the delicacy and difficulty of the Executive giving orders to the Judicature. I know that my noble and learned friend is hoping to meet the magistrates at their annual meeting next October, and I am certain that he will bring this point to their attention in the most suitable way. I, too, am to have the honour of attending at that meeting, and I will do my small and minor best to echo his words. That, I feel, is the best answer that I can give to the noble Lord at the moment.

I would mention one further point. I think that I unwittingly gave the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, a wrong impression on quite a small point to do with the towing away of vehicles. As your Lordships know, the Bill now enables the police, in certain circumstances, to tow vehicles away. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, begged us not to be too "thin-skinned" about this matter, and not to tow vehicles away only when they were obstrucing fire engines, ambulances, police cars and so on. I believe I gave the noble Lord a wrong impression on that point by the unfortunate dropping of an all-important negative, for which I take full responsibility. I can assure the noble Lord that we have no intention of confining the removal of cars solely to those circumstances. I hope that that will set his mind at rest.

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes past six o'clock.